The California Court of Appeal recently ruled that a police officer who
received personal injuries while on vacation while training for a physical
fitness test is entitled to receive benefits from workers’ compensation.

According to Tomlin v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Beverly Hills, California
police officer Dave Tomlin is a member of the SWAT (Special Weapons and
Tactics) team. He is also an instructor in defense tactics for SWAT members and
other officers of the BHPD. In order to continue to be a member of the SWAT
unit, an officer is required to pass a physical fitness test prior to joining
and then pass an annual physical fitness test that involves a half-mile run, a
wall-climb, and dragging 150 pounds.

According to court documents, Tomlin is paid by the BHPD to train four days
each month and has sent him to train at Camp Pendleton
and out of state locations. He also normally runs while vacationing to maintain
fitness.

In 2005, Tomlin began a fitness training course in order to prepare for the
test and expected to continue his training while on a two-week vacation from
December 26 until January 11, 2006. During one of the runs on his vacation, he
slipped on a sidewalk as he was rounding a corner. As he fell, his left foot
struck the curb, resulting in a broken ankle. He had to undergo surgery and was
unable to work until March 16, 2006, when he returned with modified duties.
Later, he resumed full duties. According to court documents, he was unable to
take the fitness test in January of 2006, but took and passed a subsequent
test.

Tomlin applied to receive benefits from workers’ comp because of his injury,
but was denied by the city of Beverly
Hills, which claimed that the injury took place while
he was voluntarily participating in an off-duty recreational or athletic
activity. His benefits were denied by a Workers’ Compensation Administrative
Law Judge (WCJ) and his petition for reconsideration was denied by the Workers’
Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB).

The Court of Appeal overruled the earlier decisions, saying that physical
fitness training, even on vacation, is “a reasonable expectancy” of Tomlin’s
employment because he his required to be fit and pass annual fitness tests. The
court said that if he had ceased training, it would have been inconsistent with
the requirement that he remain fit enough to pass the test.

Be the first to comment!

Post a Comment

Name *

Email *

Join the Discussion

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Contact Us

Get Help Now

If you live in the state of North Carolina, please complete the short form below and we will contact you shortly.